About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

BFRPG 4e is a good example.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
Right now, there is about to be a major shift in the TTRPG world with D&D effectively walling itself off.

My point remains that if this occurs (and it is likely at this point) it doesn't impact the OSR in the way you think.  First off the OSR will remain a secondary or tertiary choice of the hobbyist who move away from Wizard's D&D brand. The same thing that happened when Pathfinder overtook D&D 4e.

Second the OSR will get a significant influx of creatives who "get" that the foundational IP of the OSR is freely available to use by all in whatever form they want. Like Kelsey and her Shadowdark RPG team but repeated a couple of dozen times.

Then finally, as far as the existing OSR goes it will just continue as it has been marching to the beat of its own drummer. Why? Because individuals with their creative quirks are calling their own shots. 

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
My question is why stick with d20 in the OSR if it's not necessary outside of those two parameters that I cited above.

Because I like working with it now and it is easier to publish my settings, supplements, and settings using the classic edition mechanics than the alternatives. I think you will find others saying variants of this. If you really want to get a good perspective just message Kelsey over at The Arcane Library.

Mine is this, the Majestic Fantasy RPG is a lot less fussy than GURP in regards to the mechanics. It takes less time to do what I want with the Majestic Fantasy RPG at the same level of lethality, roleplaying, and things outside of spellcasting/combat than it does with GURPS. The level of details differs a lot of course. As it turns out GURPS (and Hero System) are overkill for the detail I needed for my settings and adventures. Savage World for that matter. I didn't dial all the way back to stupidly minimalist or free kriegspiel levels either. I added the mechanics that were sufficient and necessary to handle stuff that characters can do in my setting. Then repeatably playtested them across multiple campaigns and multiple groups.

And I did this while remaining compatible with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. So when I do share my setting and adventures they are still useful to those who don't give a shit about the mechanical details I am concerned about.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
There are different concerns to those categories: Those who play - play what their GM's put before them. Those who publish - are cribbing off the success of the D&D Brand(tm) AND the dissatisfaction of where that Brand has been taken, plus their love of the mechanics. As we've both proven - you can take a D&D Fantasy Setting and use GURPS, OpenD6, Savage Worlds, Homebrew <X>- and still play those settings. People *choose* to publish in d20 under the OSR banner for *reasons* that have more to do with their love of what D&D used to be, and likely out of spite to modern era D&D.

The OSR is been around 18 years now. Earlier back to 2000 or so if you count the old school communities like Dragonsfoot. By 2015 the OSR was way pass nostaglia being a factor. Might as well start accusing the d100 and Mongoose Traveller folks as nostalgia at this point. Whether you like it or not classic edition have a timeless quality about not unlike chess, backgammon, etc. The OSR is going to be around for a long regardless of Wizard's fate.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
And I'm not sure I believe you entirely when you say what WotC wants to do doesn't matter - when the OGL scandal certainly scared the shit out of a *lot* of OGL publishers for a very damn good reason.

Is that problem mitigated? Probably? But I wouldn't say 100% factually - though an awful lot of people made moves to try and ensure that. Some of them are *still* making moves (see: Paizo).

Prior to January of 2023 there were two existential threats to the OSR.

1) Wizards adopts a strict interpretation of OGL product identity and start handing out cease and desists to all the close clones.
2) DriveThruRPG stops selling classic edition clones, supplements, and adventures for reasons.

Because in their panic Wizards released the 5e SRD under Creative Common-BY threat #1 is moot. In addition "games mechanics can't be copyrighted" is getting a work out by folks like Paizo (which you mentioned), and ACKS.

It impact is that it will make the kalidoscope of the OSR even more naunced as there will be OGL, CC-BY, ORC offerings alongside various one-off licenses. My money is on CC-BY forming the bulk of the open content of the OSR. However I sure we will see ORC licensed retro-clones of Pathfinder 2e remastered.

Only #2 remains but it more a industry problem than a OSR problem.

So yes what Wizards does or doesn't do at this point doesn't matter to the OSR.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
And I *want* say this is true. It is from the perspective of the microcosm of a very pure OSR (from what I can ascertain) view that I can get behind. However, we both know it's mutated in many many other things depending on who you ask. All under the OSR banner - I mean... we have threads here dedicated to the BroSR for a reason, and that flies in the face of your definition here, but as I'm not affiliated with the OSR in any meaningful manner (oddly), I'm an outsider looking in, I'm pretty sure there are self-described factions of the OSR that wouldn't agree? Or am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.


What you see, what anybody see is just the first 20% of a very large OSR iceberg. Come at it from a different angle the OSR looks different. I personally list all the variation but I seen enough to see the overall pattern. Individuals deciding for themselves which direction to take the themes and mechanics of the classic edition. With technology such that said individual can make a go of it themselves if they want too. Well like myself.

The BroSR is just another group of folks who decided to go in a particular direction playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
If your definition was widely accepted, I'd be fine with that. And you're placing yourself fully in the first cut out I made - you're saying the OSR *is* d20 based, so I'm clear? I'd like to hear others that support this. No judgement from me on this - I'd like to hear other OSR aficionados weigh in on it too.

Keep in mind the OSR is not Savage Worlds where Pinnacle sets the tone and tenor. It is not Fate where it is Evil Hat. It not d100 with the diarchy of Chaosium and Design Mechanism. And it not D&D 5e with Wizards. It is creative anarchy. Each individual who decide to participate decide for themselves what it means and how best to realize their creative vision whether it uses the d20 based mechanics or not.

Whatever good intentions Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Wizards, etc, have the tone the company set dominates people creative vision. It may be easy to pick on Wizards right now but it applies to EVERY company who dominate a creative space in the hobby. The OSR doesn't have that. There isn't a individual or group who dominates the creative energies of the OSR the way Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Chaosium, Design Mechanism does theirs.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
This is probably the most concise and definitive definition of the OSR I've seen posted (and you may well have said it in other discussions) but here you're 100% crystal on your opinion on it. And this answers why this thread may not be germane to the rest of what I said - unless there is anyone else that has a different definition of the OSR.

I have no doubt everybody replying will have a definition. But mine is the only one that accounts for ALL the data and observations. From Dungeon World to Shadowdark, OSRIC to Old School Essentials. Little known ones like Blood & Treasure and Delving Deeper.

Hell even accounts for Zweihander where the creative inspiration is not about mechanics but rather focused being a promotional leech especially when it comes to being the only "OSR" community content program. Granted Zweihander has a thematic connection via Warhammer's connection to the Old School UK D&D crowd. But it labeled itself OSR as a promotional gimmick. Not all individuals look at the OSR's foundational material and themes with good intentions.

But Zweihander also illustrates the anarchistic nature of the OSR. There no OSR entity who has the authority to boot it from the OSR category the same way Pinnacle, Chaosium, Wizards, etc. can deal with their categories.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
But since you've already defined OSR concisely above - then MSH would not be OSR by that definition. OSR-era vintage? Sure. But in and of itself, not OSR (by your definition). And besides, MSH is well supported by their own fans and the idea of going d20 would be anathema to them. Much like, it appears, it's anathema that OSR publishers would leave d20?

A MSH clone was published by a OSR author would be discussed on OSR social media and if liked would be a recurring theme throughout the OSR especially when that author other D&D related works are played or promoted. The effect is that becomes honorary OSR. Much in the same way that the DCC RPG and Castle & Crusades are honorary OSR.

How much of a recurring theme? It depends but when observation you can trace it back because someone who was into the classic edition was also really into the other system. And played, promoted, and published for it.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
Because until I find some consensus on *what* the OSR is/stands for (and you've done a magnificent job of giving your lucid take on it),

Appreciate the compliment

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
I find it reeking of a cargo-cult among its adherents (not necessarily it's publishers) who post here day after day griping about what new offense WotC has done, and go on and on for pages about this affront or that. I do not begrudge anyone for liking their favorite system - and *no one* can ever accuse me of hating d20 (I don't, please don't fall into the trap of projecting what you think of as my vitriol for WotC to the mechanics of the old-school editions and classics - I don't). It "feels" from the threads here that many (not all) OSR products are effigies being burned in order to invoke St. Gary Frum Gygax to spite WotC, all while WotC is about to immolate itself. It seems weird. Especially considering you're the first person in all these threads to simply say: yes it's classic d20 first and foremost.

First off thanks for explaining that.

The bad news is that while the details are different what you describe been a thread of the OSR from the get go. If you want I can give you my detailed observation of the social history of the OSR in this regard. But I think you get my point.

The one time the bitching and griping wasn't an issue was during the runup to 5e when Wizards was kissing the Old School community collective ass as part of its outreach PR. The reprints, the restoration of the PDFs, and the 5e consultations, were all gestures that created a lot of goodwill among the OSR. But any vestige of that is now utterly gone after the giant wooden stake that was the OGL 2.0 fiasco.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
I am publishing (not OSR). I'm not saying anyone publishing OSR is wrong. I'm saying there is an opportunity here to transcend whatever it is you consider "the status quo" - unless you don't care. I care.

There is never a "status quo" in the OSR. It always in a constant state of change. For every new Old School Essential there is a Shadowdark.

Frankly I will stack the work I done with my Majestic Fantasy RPG up against anybody else work in the industry. To clear I don't think you are insulting me. But I don't think you understand that how much research, playtesting and care goes into OSR RPGs. People look at Old School Essential and think "Oh is only rehashed B/X D&D". I say to you and those others, fine then bang out something that just as well put together and useful to use for B/X D&D as OSE. Then we will talk. Let's just say you don't get to the $700,000 kickstarter level by putting out the same old shit.

The same with my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I spent a decade of chiseling there, adding that to get the system tweaked just so. And when I wrote it up I didn't present as Rob's vision from the RPG gods. No I peppered it with explanations and Rob's Notes as to why things work the way they do. Then using OSE as an example, I made sure the layout was top notch. The most crucial of which is to put related information on facing pages. It not a gold seller yet on DriveThru but it is getting there. My previous version, the Majestic Wilderlands, was a gold seller.

The reason I am challenging you to show us how we are doing it wrong is because it only by doing that you will truly understand what innovation looks like in the OSR. And what one has to do to make something that thought of as good and useful within the OSR.

Take another example, Blackmarsh. It is not a gold seller and has nearly 20,000 downloads of the free PDF not because I made a map with a numbered hex grid and cover that is a homage to the Greyhawk folio. It does as well as it does because what I did to breathe life into the setting. How it all come together to feel alive despite keeping most entries to one or two short paragraphs.

And I am not the only in the OSR who does this. Doing this with stuff and mechanics that most dismiss as something that needs to be transcended.

Again if you want to really understand this, then do your own OSR project. When you are ready PM me and I will help with what I can.  I understand your trepidation that it may feel like putting on creative binders. I known OSR authors who started out that way but soon found out how interesting and creative it really is.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
There is certainly a bet to be made that the fallout of WotC's decision *will* benefit the OSR. There is also a bet to be made something else can help fill that vacuum. Who is banking on the OSR being that thing? And why? It might not be you - and you may not care at all. (I think you should, since you're one of the many people here that has tons of material that could be used to fuel another direction.

I don't care because I am too busy realizing my own creative vision. If it happens to be "the thing" after Wizard implodes then great. But I am going to do what I know I am good at. The feedback I pay attention to will be those things that I am told are needed to my creative vision more accessible to others. I have no problem recasting my creative ideas with other mechanics. But only if I have the time for it and only if I see the interest in that particular set of mechanics.

Keep in mind I already worked up much of my stuff for Fudge/Fate (more Fudge than Fate), AGE, and 5e. After the main release is done, I am considering releasing my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox using other systems for the examples. But frankly doing that is just window dressing. The main points of the book work regardless of the fantasy system being used (within reason). And all the candidates I have in mind just wind up cluttering the book. Because say what you will of the classic editions there are only a handful of other RPGs that can match it for terseness when it comes to laying out a book.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2023, 08:38:24 PM
About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

Go with CC-BY put the credit Wizards wants in your work and that is it. You don't have to worry about what to make open content.  You could share but it is not required using CC-BY.

If you do share, CC-BY allows people to use the your open content with other license including the OGL and ORC. It is the O negative "universal donor" license of the open content world. Folks just have to make sure the credits are included in the appropriate sections of citing the OGL or ORC licenses.

It seems pretty simple to me
  1)  Most folks already know d20
  2)  d20 is good enough for what people are doing
  3)  Learning a new system is some work
  4)  you can't really tell if a system is better until you learn it
Given all the above, there's not really a compelling reason to pay the price of learning something new when it may not be better and you're already more or less satisfied with what you've got.  Thus if a developer wants to get a lot of people playing his game, it's far easier to go d20

I actually like learning new systems, so I'm happy to try stuff out.  But I have a feeling I'm in a small minority in the hobby.

Most people came to the OSR, whatever it means, either because they wanted to keep playing the old games and things that were sort of compatible with them, or they wanted to play something with the feel of the old games. There is nothing special about any particular decade that makes certain kinds of games more or less appealing. By 1984, you had most of the diversity now seen in games; then in 1991 you get Vampire: The Masquerade, and people are talking more about using dice rolls to tell a story. Vampire: The Masquerade is over thirty years old at this point, so just being an old game doesn't have much to do with the OSR, in any of its forms.

Mostly it's about Gygax and Arneson, maybe with more of a nod to Arneson, and that means mostly OD&D, AD&D. A sense people about the time before slick-looking Basic Sets. And that just means different things to different people. But it doesn't have hardly anything to do with Marvel Super-Heroes or DC Heroes, each with a very broad, different kind of rules-set, and art by actual comic book artists, with the backing of major publishers from the get-go.

While WOTC owns "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, THE WORLDS GREATEST ROLE PLAYING GAME  tm"  It doesn't own Dungeons and Dragons.  I see no need to either acknowledge or ignore WOTC any further.  Simply do not let Hasbro/WOTC influence you or your play style.

As for the D20 itself, I like it.  I feel that it's not being utilized to it's fullest and is more versatile than it's used in many games.  As such WOTC should have no factor in my decision to have and use D20 dice.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
What is the attraction of retaining the d20 system within the OSR?

People will come up with all sorts of justifications and reasoning, perhaps based on that last adverbial phrase. But after years of reading about the maths, advantages, and disadvantages of every die size and combination, I've come to the conclusion that the underlying reason is always the same, and has nothing to do with the OSR or history.

It's simply this: the D20 is a very cool shape. It is aesthetically pleasing to view, hold, and roll. It has enough sides to display a faceted beauty, and few enough to feel discreet when rolling.

That said, my own homebrew uses D12s! I'd definitely consider my game "old school", and I couldn't care less if someone calls it "OSR" or not.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
My point remains that if this occurs (and it is likely at this point) it doesn't impact the OSR in the way you think.  First off the OSR will remain a secondary or tertiary choice of the hobbyist who move away from Wizard's D&D brand. The same thing that happened when Pathfinder overtook D&D 4e.

Why aim for second place with your content? Again this is why I claused this for people already invested. But if there were a reason to make a shift aside from the inertia of d20 - would you not agree this is the time to build for it. This might not be *you*, but from an objective standpoint, shooting for second or third place tacitly implies there's more market to capture. Otherwise you're saying "let's just hope we're more successful". To that specific point I *do* believe the OSR will get more consumers.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMSecond the OSR will get a significant influx of creatives who "get" that the foundational IP of the OSR is freely available to use by all in whatever form they want. Like Kelsey and her Shadowdark RPG team but repeated a couple of dozen times.

Then finally, as far as the existing OSR goes it will just continue as it has been marching to the beat of its own drummer. Why? Because individuals with their creative quirks are calling their own shots.

I think the total amount of people that will fall out of WotC implosion, that stay with the hobby will be more than the OSR can possibly absorb, but *could* absorb more, with a unified front. This is why you and others in the OSR have always had these confusing threads where until now - and it remans so in this thread - no one else outside of you that happens to be a developer for the OSR (even Pundit has never expressly stated this to me, or anywhere else to my recollection tacitly) that the OSR is strictly d20.

You and I have been on threads where people have expressed that many old-school games are "OSR" which by your definition here - are not. This entirely changes the dynamic of this thread simply because no one has expressly stated this.

I certainly am not going to tell people "what" to like. As you said - people are going to do what they want to do. My goal would be for the "OSR" to have a more unified front - but clearly this is never going to be the case outside of "we're like whatever flavor of classic D&D we like, and that's what we're sticking with." Since nothing outside of that, by your definition, and clearly no one else here is naysaying you... then my assumptions are moot. Ironically, it benefits me in the long term.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMBecause I like working with it now and it is easier to publish my settings, supplements, and settings using the classic edition mechanics than the alternatives. I think you will find others saying variants of this. If you really want to get a good perspective just message Kelsey over at The Arcane Library.

I'll ping him. It's of interest to me.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMMine is this, the Majestic Fantasy RPG is a lot less fussy than GURP in regards to the mechanics. It takes less time to do what I want with the Majestic Fantasy RPG at the same level of lethality, roleplaying, and things outside of spellcasting/combat than it does with GURPS. The level of details differs a lot of course. As it turns out GURPS (and Hero System) are overkill for the detail I needed for my settings and adventures. Savage World for that matter. I didn't dial all the way back to stupidly minimalist or free kriegspiel levels either. I added the mechanics that were sufficient and necessary to handle stuff that characters can do in my setting. Then repeatably playtested them across multiple campaigns and multiple groups.

And I did this while remaining compatible with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. So when I do share my setting and adventures they are still useful to those who don't give a shit about the mechanical details I am concerned about.

Fair enough.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
The OSR is been around 18 years now. Earlier back to 2000 or so if you count the old school communities like Dragonsfoot. By 2015 the OSR was way pass nostaglia being a factor. Might as well start accusing the d100 and Mongoose Traveller folks as nostalgia at this point. Whether you like it or not classic edition have a timeless quality about not unlike chess, backgammon, etc. The OSR is going to be around for a long regardless of Wizard's fate.

I have ZERO doubt the OSR will go on its merry way forever. None whatsoever. What I don't think it will do, and I admit I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, is it could do so much more to fill the vacuum that WotC is about leave behind.

Mike Mearls, and a few others (including myself) during the 3.x era (2005-ish or so?) conspired to create a version of D&D that was totally modular, where each person would be assigned to a subsystem and own and design for it in different ways to accommodate popular modes of play. We were going to create a type of d20 core set of mechanics that would allow plug-and-play modularity but could also stand on its own. Effectively, it would have allowed anyone to design content for the core, but all the modular subsystems could be used at the table to tune it up/down/sideways as the GM saw fit without losing coherency. It would have had options for Spellpoints, Vancian, Effects-based magic, different martial systems that plugged directly to the core task-resolution mechanics.

The goal was to allow anyone (even the nascent OSR folks) to plug directly in their non-mechanical setting content, while offering their own mechanical additions for their publications, but keep it all under one roof. It fell through because Mike got the golden-handcuffs offer to join WotC.

That's the kind thing I'd like to see from the OSR. Likely will never happen, which in large part is why I'm not particularly interested in it outside of a couple of people: You and Pundit, who both produce a lot of content that is designed for how I like to run my campaigns. I run sprawling sandboxes. That requires designers that know what they're doing and have clear ideas about how to mechanically express them. I'm not interested in mini-settings, or *just* adventures. This is why things like Shadowdark don't interest me - I do Underdark content all the time (even wrote a book on it) so it's narrow fare where I find nothing about it particularly interesting for the games I run.

Pundit's medieval content sprawls very nicely. But it's also of a unique genre that is a hard sell for my players who want more gonzo-lite than the rigor he presents. It's got hard competition. Your stuff is much more to their tastes. But they're not fans of the system - nor do they want to re-learn the nuances of another d20 system. And that's okay too. I want big-tent options and a solid core, but *I* could do that on my own... but I look at staying with d20 as not a "blue ocean strategy" (ugh, yeah I went corporate) precisely because there are so many disparate d20 options.

Again - why I claused this thread about those already invested: you're already set and in the mix. Pivoting for you is a monumental task.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
Prior to January of 2023 there were two existential threats to the OSR.

1) Wizards adopts a strict interpretation of OGL product identity and start handing out cease and desists to all the close clones.
2) DriveThruRPG stops selling classic edition clones, supplements, and adventures for reasons.

Because in their panic Wizards released the 5e SRD under Creative Common-BY threat #1 is moot. In addition "games mechanics can't be copyrighted" is getting a work out by folks like Paizo (which you mentioned), and ACKS.

It impact is that it will make the kalidoscope of the OSR even more naunced as there will be OGL, CC-BY, ORC offerings alongside various one-off licenses. My money is on CC-BY forming the bulk of the open content of the OSR. However I sure we will see ORC licensed retro-clones of Pathfinder 2e remastered.

Only #2 remains but it more a industry problem than a OSR problem.

So yes what Wizards does or doesn't do at this point doesn't matter to the OSR.

What you see, what anybody see is just the first 20% of a very large OSR iceberg. Come at it from a different angle the OSR looks different. I personally list all the variation but I seen enough to see the overall pattern. Individuals deciding for themselves which direction to take the themes and mechanics of the classic edition. With technology such that said individual can make a go of it themselves if they want too. Well like myself.

The BroSR is just another group of folks who decided to go in a particular direction playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions

It is precisely this disparate nature of the OSR, that makes me point out: why stand separate when a confederation of OSR developers (and new ones!) can't plant a banner with the big-tent push with a ruleset designed to open the flaps for the fallout? Even I, as someone that looks askance at all the OSR products (outside of yours and Pundits stuff, there is very little OSR material I've seen that is useful to me in terms of setting, although Venger's Chaalt looks fun. I think of the WotC implosion as an enterprise-level opportunity, not an individual going-it-alone one, at least in the OSR sense. Sure I think it'll spell some increase in sales for the OSR in general - but I think that a united front could drive more excitement and bring in more to the fold and give them a place to start over. Because that's exactly what they'll be doing.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
Keep in mind the OSR is not Savage Worlds where Pinnacle sets the tone and tenor. It is not Fate where it is Evil Hat. It not d100 with the diarchy of Chaosium and Design Mechanism. And it not D&D 5e with Wizards. It is creative anarchy. Each individual who decide to participate decide for themselves what it means and how best to realize their creative vision whether it uses the d20 based mechanics or not.

Whatever good intentions Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Wizards, etc, have the tone the company set dominates people creative vision. It may be easy to pick on Wizards right now but it applies to EVERY company who dominate a creative space in the hobby. The OSR doesn't have that. There isn't a individual or group who dominates the creative energies of the OSR the way Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Chaosium, Design Mechanism does theirs.

Absolutely. I'm factoring that into my own personal future plans. But Chaotic Anarchy is also a limiting factor in its own right. But if that's cool with you, then you're fine. I want more from the potential of this event.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMI have no doubt everybody replying will have a definition. But mine is the only one that accounts for ALL the data and observations. From Dungeon World to Shadowdark, OSRIC to Old School Essentials. Little known ones like Blood & Treasure and Delving Deeper.

Hell even accounts for Zweihander where the creative inspiration is not about mechanics but rather focused being a promotional leech especially when it comes to being the only "OSR" community content program. Granted Zweihander has a thematic connection via Warhammer's connection to the Old School UK D&D crowd. But it labeled itself OSR as a promotional gimmick. Not all individuals look at the OSR's foundational material and themes with good intentions.

But Zweihander also illustrates the anarchistic nature of the OSR. There no OSR entity who has the authority to boot it from the OSR category the same way Pinnacle, Chaosium, Wizards, etc. can deal with their categories.

See, the difference of perspective we have here is you're fine with the current status-quo, as it requires nothing from you that you're not already doing. I'm looking at this event as an opportunity of rare occurrence. I happened to be feverishly planning for this long before WotC decided down this path - and now, I'm not sure if I'm going to hit the sweet-spot due to the timing of their self-immolation. But I'm plugging away.

If standing pat is okay, and like I said earlier - it's a good bet for OSR folks already in that bubble that will see some interest in their products. I think it could be more. Much more. And I take you for your word on the OSR history and analysis, which I feel is accurate. It also means that it's all self-contained in its own sphere of influence - which is in your own words Creative Anarchy, which gives you ultimate freedom, but also has its own scaling drawbacks that don't appear to be accounting for what's coming, unless there is some big announcements to be made to attract people over. But maybe no one cares?

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMA MSH clone was published by a OSR author would be discussed on OSR social media and if liked would be a recurring theme throughout the OSR especially when that author other D&D related works are played or promoted. The effect is that becomes honorary OSR. Much in the same way that the DCC RPG and Castle & Crusades are honorary OSR.

How much of a recurring theme? It depends but when observation you can trace it back because someone who was into the classic edition was also really into the other system. And played, promoted, and published for it.

I don't buy that. I *like* your clean delineation. Don't backtrack on me now! The moment you imply that anything that can be backtracked to their "classic renditions" opens up the world of shit that is gross reality of "Chaotic Anarchy" and shit like Zweihander coat-tail riding on the OSR train. This is exactly what has given me confusion about the OSR and what it is over these years. When you have die-hard OSR folks like Pundit writing and filming SCREEEEEEDS (good ones too) about GNS theory and its shitty outcomes (I actually think it's shittier in ramifications to the cottage TTRPG industry than Pundit might), talking about how generally <X> mechanics should never be in TTRPG's to begin with, only to find exceptions to that be included into the OSR tent for... reasons... Nah! fuck that. I like saying OSR is d20 foundationally. Because it means I know exactly what the parameters are.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMThere is never a "status quo" in the OSR. It always in a constant state of change. For every new Old School Essential there is a Shadowdark.

Frankly I will stack the work I done with my Majestic Fantasy RPG up against anybody else work in the industry. To clear I don't think you are insulting me. But I don't think you understand that how much research, playtesting and care goes into OSR RPGs. People look at Old School Essential and think "Oh is only rehashed B/X D&D". I say to you and those others, fine then bang out something that just as well put together and useful to use for B/X D&D as OSE. Then we will talk. Let's just say you don't get to the $700,000 kickstarter level by putting out the same old shit.

But there is a status-quo in the OSR. The OSR *is* its own status-quo directly relative to every other TTRPG vs. the sick Elephant in the room called WotC.  I'm *assuming* that OSR publishers right now, are getting some sales traction by the rats leaving the WotC ship early. Constant change in the OSR *is* the status-quo. That is a limiting factor unless someone produces enough content to hold people. YOU and a few others in the OSR are the ones that produce enough content under the OSR banner that is not trying to replicate the model TSR (more intelligently without spreading too thin on content no one wants*).

The difference is, since I'm a corporate slob (for now), I do equate time=money. And that means you get one good sales pitch off the jump to grab momentum. Again - this is where the clause in the OP is germane if you're already invested, then this part of the post may not be for you in this specific case, but the rest of your response has been gold.

As someone that has been part of a couple of published games (Talislanta) I'm familiar with what it takes to get a product to market, heh and getting more familiar with it everyday. There is a marketing aspect of the OSR that is limited by the fact it's tied to older editions of d20 simply for the same reasons that people didn't continue to run those editions because the mob was more interested in chasing whatever shit WotC was currently serving up. I *prefer* older editions of D&D by FAR. But the pie has grown, and getting people to play older editions of D&D over 5e is pulling teeth. Ironically pitching an OSR game is preferential simply by saying "It's like D&D" vs. telling players it's tied to a specific older version.

I think the appeal is limited for those reasons to those not already engaged with the OSR. It's my guess I'm betting on. Anyone new to the hobby will not know the difference. Those that are in the hobby, know the branding, and likely feel as I do - fond, but not committed. At minimum "the OSR" needs a new marketing push - but it's likely not going to happen due to the nature of its "structure", or lack thereof. Of course on an individual level anyone within the OSR can breakout... but as an umbrella, I think the OSR is its own thing, and holds its own status-quo within the larger hobby.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMThe same with my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I spent a decade of chiseling there, adding that to get the system tweaked just so. And when I wrote it up I didn't present as Rob's vision from the RPG gods. No I peppered it with explanations and Rob's Notes as to why things work the way they do. Then using OSE as an example, I made sure the layout was top notch. The most crucial of which is to put related information on facing pages. It not a gold seller yet on DriveThru but it is getting there. My previous version, the Majestic Wilderlands, was a gold seller.

The reason I am challenging you to show us how we are doing it wrong is because it only by doing that you will truly understand what innovation looks like in the OSR. And what one has to do to make something that thought of as good and useful within the OSR.

The fact you spent a decade polishing and polishing shows. Here's the thing, we have different standards of what we're talking about. I'm talking about what could be. You're talking about what is. YOU deserve to be showered with money. So does everyone else making good content. I don't talk a lot about my personal life, I live well. But my standard of what I want in the OSR (which is largely moot now, since it's obvious that it'll likely never happen) is that I'd love nothing more than the OSR to band together and absorb *all* of the D&D fanbase writ large.

Could it happen? Not under the rubric of Chaotic Anarchy as individuals standing alone. United with the guys banded together making something big and special setting and ruleswise? It would *energize* people. I think in this regard because it's still d20, it's a harder sell for the exact reasons you've already cited. Nothing I say is going to convince people already invested in d20 of any stripe to go outside of d20 with just words, especially a new brand of d20. It's competing for dollars already going to d20 products. This is not the Blue Ocean Strategy I'm advocating for. But bring a good product, using "Old School" principles, outside of d20, with good marketing and a long-term plan? That is a better strategy, to me, in the coming years as an individual creator. First and foremost I'm a setting guy. But I also recognize that having a good system under it is hugely important. Who knows? I might finally join the OSR later as its own edition with what I'm working on. I'd rather walk into an established group of consumers with a product they want after it's established elsewhere.

This is why Savage Worlds Pathfinder and Savage Worlds Rifts are so successful. Solid ruleset. Disgruntled Pathfinder and D&D players are pouring in. Rifts? Arguably the most *die hard* fanbase outside of Warhammer fans that exists who I never thought in a bazillion years would ever cross over to Savage Worlds, are pouring in. It was slow at first, but now it's widely accepted. So much so that the Sean Robberson is the line-developer and is the partner at Palladium. For the first time in years Palladium is turning itself around - which is great.

Now I'm not saying this to be a rah-rah about Savage Worlds - I'm using it as an example. Yes, you're absolutely right Pinnacle owns the system and branding. But they do give their partners a ton of leeway. As a creator you're not obligated to stay in their ecosphere either. There is a way to leverage your setting across multiple rulesets without losing fidelity IF the rules interpretations are good and can support the conceits appropriately.

This is where I put d20, generally, into its own box. It handles a range of play very well. Other systems have better scaling, but perhaps they don't do granular detail as well as d20 can. Since you've defined (and still no one has naysayed you - fuck your grandfathering clause LOL) as d20, I think there is a better path for the OSR's settings outside of just d20 (but by all means do d20 too.)

OSR is not going anywhere. I'll say it a thousand times. It's on the line of infinite regression. It will continue *forever* as long as d20 is the du-jour system of their banner. But it will also be limited by that conceit. And that's fine for many, but for my time, I'll need more than that alone because I want to offer more to the hobby rather than staying in one spot. I'm willing to sell good ideas in the systems of other people prefer as long as it fits.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMTake another example, Blackmarsh. It is not a gold seller and has nearly 20,000 downloads of the free PDF not because I made a map with a numbered hex grid and cover that is a homage to the Greyhawk folio. It does as well as it does because what I did to breathe life into the setting. How it all come together to feel alive despite keeping most entries to one or two short paragraphs.

And I am not the only in the OSR who does this. Doing this with stuff and mechanics that most dismiss as something that needs to be transcended.

Again if you want to really understand this, then do your own OSR project. When you are ready PM me and I will help with what I can.  I understand your trepidation that it may feel like putting on creative binders. I known OSR authors who started out that way but soon found out how interesting and creative it really is.

Right. Because you are one of the rare unicorns in the OSR that *does* do this. Yes there are others, but the OSR by and large doesn't give this kind of care. I don't mean to sound harsh about it - YOU and the few others in the OSR are still under the banner of what others in the OSR don't do at your standard. I used to do work for Joseph Goodman, even if his company is going the ideological shit-bag route, I will never say a bad thing about Joe Goodman for personal reasons (he went out of his way during a medical scare I had without *any* need to). I will say DCC does *nothing* for me, it is not meant for me. Most of the OSR content is not meant for me, outside of yours and a few others.

My larger goals is not just producing TTRPG content, mind you. I'm wanting to teach people to game at the level where sprawling settings will be the primary product of consumption regardless of ruleset. So from my perspective the OSR banner has gems in it, but it's also surrounded by things *I* personally find not useful, but useful for a certain mode of play. Your material transcends most of it, but it's also under the OSR banner because that's how you've marketed it. To outsiders that could be hit or miss. But you're also marketing largely to a self-contained world of the OSR itself.

There is value in that for sure. But again, I think it could be more. Particularly for Majestic Wilderlands. This conversation has been extremely useful for me, and it's convinced me that my future plans does have room for OSR content. But it will come after. And yes, I'll definitely hit you up on it.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMI don't care because I am too busy realizing my own creative vision. If it happens to be "the thing" after Wizard implodes then great. But I am going to do what I know I am good at. The feedback I pay attention to will be those things that I am told are needed to my creative vision more accessible to others. I have no problem recasting my creative ideas with other mechanics. But only if I have the time for it and only if I see the interest in that particular set of mechanics.

Keep in mind I already worked up much of my stuff for Fudge/Fate (more Fudge than Fate), AGE, and 5e. After the main release is done, I am considering releasing my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox using other systems for the examples. But frankly doing that is just window dressing. The main points of the book work regardless of the fantasy system being used (within reason). And all the candidates I have in mind just wind up cluttering the book. Because say what you will of the classic editions there are only a handful of other RPGs that can match it for terseness when it comes to laying out a book.

We need to talk. I'm sending you a PM later. I think there might be something we can converge on!

Because, as others have pointed out, by retaining compatibility to other OSR (Understanding OSR as the retroclones and the games that aren't but use the same underlaying mechanics) games the pool of potential buyers is bigger, just look at Kevin Crawford, lot's of people (my self included) own his stuff while not playing his games, because I can steal from it for my own homebrew.

Take my WIP Pulp OSR Game, the bestiary is now 250 entries deep and counting, lots of those aren't on any WotC product that I know off. So, lets say your poison of choice is B/X - OSE, and you own Gangbusters B/X edition, you can, with zero to verylittle work, use any of the entries in my bestiary, so you might buy my game just for that reason.

Then there's the because I like the mechanics and because fuck WotC reasons too.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:22:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2023, 08:38:24 PM
About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

Go with CC-BY put the credit Wizards wants in your work and that is it. You don't have to worry about what to make open content.  You could share but it is not required using CC-BY.

If you do share, CC-BY allows people to use the your open content with other license including the OGL and ORC. It is the O negative "universal donor" license of the open content world. Folks just have to make sure the credits are included in the appropriate sections of citing the OGL or ORC licenses.

I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 29, 2023, 03:26:54 PM
I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

I have to change my advice you have to share the entire content (text) of your work as the new Basic Fantasy is shared under CC-BY-SA (Share-alike).

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
OTHERWISE... my question is this:  What is the attraction of retaining the d20 system within the OSR? With all the general dislike of WotC, who owns and controls the D&D brand, and let's be real, the d20 system, does it not forever keep everyone in this radioactive mud-wrestling pit with a corporation that hates all of us?

What do you mean by D20? The specific OGL SRD? Well, despite that 3.x one now being CC-BY-SA a lot of the OSR has dumped it. In response to earlier this year BFRGP halted nearly all supplement releases to go back and remove all SRD language resulting in BFRPG 4th coming out. Pazio just released new PF for the same reason. The recently KS ACK: Imperial Imprint removed all OGL material (and AM argues it is better for it, at least around spells). So, it's pretty clear for that definition of D20, it's going, going, and soon gone.

If you mean the through line of using a D20 for combat along with six stats and so on, why is it used?

Because it is the lingua franca of the hobby. It always has been.  Even in the 80s there were multiple translations of other things to and from it but rarely between other things directly. The oldest SRD, IMHO, is The Challenges Game System by Tom Moldvay after he left TSR. It was published in the late 80s to use as a reference to write D&D material without TSR lawyers calling you.

Nothing has replaced the system for that. It's going to be hard to get people who want to engage a play style popular among D&D players prior to Moldvay's pseudo-SRD to move to GURPS or Savage Worlds or even BRP which at least dates to that era.

Removed as it was based on misreading what I quoted.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 29, 2023, 04:39:22 AM
Most people came to the OSR, whatever it means, either because they wanted to keep playing the old games and things that were sort of compatible with them, or they wanted to play something with the feel of the old games. There is nothing special about any particular decade that makes certain kinds of games more or less appealing. By 1984, you had most of the diversity now seen in games; then in 1991 you get Vampire: The Masquerade, and people are talking more about using dice rolls to tell a story. Vampire: The Masquerade is over thirty years old at this point, so just being an old game doesn't have much to do with the OSR, in any of its forms.

This, pretty much although I'd push both your dates back a bit...I think you can find examples of people advocating, and providing rules for, any playstyle discussed today by 1979 and maybe earlier. I used to use a specific Space Gamer article as my touchstone, although much was implied instead of direct, but collecting old A&E issues shows me how much of the hobby was there before I came over from hex and chit in 1977.

Quote from: estar on November 29, 2023, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 29, 2023, 03:26:54 PM
I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

I have to change my advice you have to share the entire content (text) of your work as the new Basic Fantasy is shared under CC-BY-SA (Share-alike).

Sounds fair enough! Thanks!